Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
K. Jhanai Laxhmi Bai – Appellant
Versus
B. Visweswara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-10-2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, in O.S.No.19 of 1994. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.61,150/-.
2. Brief averments in the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as follows:
(b) The plaintiff further pleaded that in spite of repeated demands, the said Sambasiva Rao, during his life time, postponed the payment and he died intestate and all the properties of Sambasiva Rao devolved upon the defendants as his legal representatives and after the death of Sambasiva Rao, though the plaintiff demanded the defendants to deposit the suit debt, they failed to discharge the suit debt and that the plaintiff is constrained to f
The court affirmed the validity of a mortgage deed executed by a deceased borrower, emphasizing the defendants' failure to prove claims of prior partition and lack of consideration.
The court emphasized the discretion of the court to award interest and the importance of considering recitals in the mortgage deed in determining the rate of interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the discretion to award interest at a rate it deems fit, and in this case, the trial Court's decision to award 24% simple intere....
The execution of a registered mortgage deed must be proven, and past consideration is valid; failure to testify can lead to adverse inferences against the party withholding evidence.
The appellate court reaffirmed that the execution of a mortgage deed is valid with past consideration, and the burden of proof rests with the parties to provide evidence for their claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of admissions and the credibility of witnesses in proving a case, as well as the burden of proof in civil suits.
The rejection of additional evidence sought to be adduced in the First Appellate Court was justified, as it did not meet the criteria under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it would ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
